Juventus Tan v. Loretta E. Lynch , 645 F. App'x 589 ( 2016 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 24 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUVENTUS JULIUS TAN, No. 13-74356
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-023-661
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 15, 2016**
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Juventus Julius Tan, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
agency’s factual findings, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009),
and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that the incidents
Tan experienced in Indonesia, even considered cumulatively, did not rise to the
level of persecution. See id. at 1059-60 (record did not compel finding of past
persecution where petitioner was robbed and beaten as a youth, and accosted by a
mob); see also Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2003) (record did
not compel finding of past persecution where petitioner suffered discrimination
and harassment, but no significant physical violence). Substantial evidence also
supports the agency’s determination that, even under a disfavored group analysis,
Tan failed to demonstrate sufficient individualized risk of harm as a Chinese
Christian to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution in Indonesia. See
Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 979 (9th Cir. 2009). We reject Tan’s contentions
that the agency failed to consider evidence or otherwise erred in analyzing his
claim. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990-91 (9th Cir. 2010). Thus,
Tan’s asylum claim fails.
Because Tan failed to establish eligibility for asylum, his withholding of
removal claim necessarily fails. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190
(9th Cir. 2006).
2 13-74356
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Tan’s CAT
claim because he failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not he would be
tortured if returned to Indonesia. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th
Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 13-74356